The "LXQt contributors" list would be kept up in an AUTHORS file, Luis. We don't need to be an entity nor to require a CLA to track authorship.
See how Wine does it, for example (and they're a much, much older project than us with a lot more contributors): https://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/blob/cfbc37c699e3b3b27df4c566014e6dde9c7194b8:/AUTHORS And where did the "relicensing" come from? The license itself is unaffected - this is only relevant for copyright purposes. I'd really like us to fix those headers and tackle problems one at a time, please. What we currently have is neither correct nor up to the task - a lot of our headers are incorrect, pasted from other modules, or even display the wrong license. J. Leclanche On 18 August 2015 at 20:03, Luís Pereira <luis.artur.pere...@gmail.com> wrote: > After some reading and talking, to people that knows a lot more than > myself, I arrived to the following conclusions: > * Using the LXQt contributors way implies that we will have no means > to enforce it. LXQt contributors is not an legal entity. If it were a > legal entity, CLA signing would be needed. > * Who is entitled to do licence changes in the LXQt contributors model > ? Anyone ? Can someone make a couple of contributions and then fork > and change the licence ? > > Paulo and Palo are Ok with the proposed change. I'm not. > Sorry, but I will continue putting myself as the copyright holder. I'm > not happy with the perspective of someone that didn't do squat being > able to relicence the code. > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Luís Pereira > <luis.artur.pere...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I'm sympathetic to this effort. Worst than the model being broken, >> it's copyright law and specially It's practice that's broken. >> IADNAL also. In our circumstances, I don't know of any solution that >> achieve the desired goals and provides an valid copyright. IADNAL >> >> I'm reading this to educate myself: >> http://opensource.org/faq >> http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2012/ManagingCopyrightInformation.html >> http://producingoss.com >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Jerome Leclanche <jer...@leclan.ch> wrote: >>> Thanks for the feedback guys. >>> >>> Regarding the "LXQt contributors" not being a legal entity: I hear the >>> concern. The goal is to word it in such a way that the copyright is >>> broadly applied to whoever contributed to the project. I think my >>> current proposal covers this but I'm open to suggestions. >>> >>> The way I see it, the current model is broken either way. Anybody can >>> just come in and modify the copyright header, add their names to it >>> after fixing a typo or some such. And other devs who work on the other >>> 99.9% of the code won't necessarily bother to add their name. >>> >>> I'm going off my limited knowledge of copyright law here, and IADNAL >>> :) I'd love to hear other proposals, as long as they follow the main >>> goals: >>> >>> - Shrink the headers as much as possible >>> - Standardize them >>> - Remove the need to ever change them >>> >>> J. Leclanche >> >> >> >> -- >> Luís Pereira > > > > -- > Luís Pereira ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Lxde-list mailing list Lxde-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxde-list
